Does anyone know why Ward Executive Secretaries are allowed to see temple recommend status for members but Ward Assistant Clerks aren't? The Access Table says "Temple Recommend Status" and "Endowed without Recommend" are not available to Ward Assistant Clerks but they are available for Ward Executive Secretaries.

Currently the access to the leader tools on lds.org reflect the standard callings and responsibilities found in the Handbook. Without Handbook 1 in front of me I can't give you the specific descriptions and responsibilities for each standard position. But as I recall assistant clerks have no responsibility involving member temple recommend status while a ward executive secretary assists the bishop. One of those tasks in assisting the bishop is to schedule interviews such as temple recommend interviews. He may also need to provide a list for calling considerations.

I was reviewing Handbook 1, specifically chapter 13, and I haven't found anything that says the executive secretary should have access to the temple recommend status list. (Of course, the secretary is responsible for scheduling interviews, but that announcement is in a general context.) However, ward clerks (including assistants) are responsible for providing lists of member needs, which I assume would include temple recommend needs. Does anyone know of anything specific in Handbook 1 or another policy document that explains why executive secretaries have access to temple recommend status but ward clerks (including assistants) don't?

dwsmith2 wrote:I was reviewing Handbook 1, specifically chapter 13, and I haven't found anything that says the executive secretary should have access to the temple recommend status list. (Of course, the secretary is responsible for scheduling interviews, but that announcement is in a general context.) However, ward clerks (including assistants) are responsible for providing lists of member needs, which I assume would include temple recommend needs. Does anyone know of anything specific in Handbook 1 or another policy document that explains why executive secretaries have access to temple recommend status but ward clerks (including assistants) don't?

The ward clerk does have access to the Temple Recommend Status report.

I don't know of any policy that says why assistant clerks don't have access. But recommend status is considered sensitive information. I suspect the brethren who make these decisions wanted to limit access to those callings that have a specific need in order to protect this information. The recommend list is specifically useful to the Executive Secretary in contacting people about scheduling recommend interviews. The ward clerk must have access to complete the quarterly report (and he has responsibility for all records in the ward). Assistant clerks don't have any specific responsibility in this area. Unfortunately that does limit the ability of the bishop and ward clerk to delegate certain responsibilities.

It may not be a Handbook issue, but more a data security issue. By limiting the recommend info to ward clerk, exec. sec, you limit the access to sensitive data. Some wards may have many ward assistant clerks, and most with extremely varied duties that have nothing to do with recommends. Why give all of them rights to information they should not be concerned with? Ultimately, granting ward assistant clerks Temple recommend rights would limit the people that some might comfortably call to the Ward Assistant clerk calling. If a bishop decides, he certainly could instruct one who can print the list to give it to another he delegates to make Temple Recommend calls.

The reasons given make sense. I guess our ward does things a little differently, so I need to take that into account. Thanks for your comments; they better helped me understand the reasoning behind the restrictions.

Remember, though, we are discussing rights with LDS.org rights access, which ARE NOT the same as rights granted within Member Leader Services (MLS) to similar information. The major difference is important to this topic, because many wards are set-up that way. MLS will allow a local leader to specify who has access to what information based on the login permissions granted to that individual locally, irrespective of his calling. In MLS, for example, many ward assistant clerks could be called, and some might not be granted MLS access at all, because their assigned job functions do not require it, but one may be given the right to access/update temple recommends. LDS.org grants permissions/rights to data solely on callings and access cannot (as yet) be customized by a local leader, so to err on the side of restricting access seems prudent when you consider this applies to all units around the globe.

I'm a Ward Executive Secretary, and I have access to the tools that I ought to have on LDS.org. Our ward also has an Ward Assistant Executive Secretary, but that isn't a defined role for the permissions on the site. That means that my assistant ends up not getting the access he needs online, although we can get him access in MLS.

Is there a reason that the position is not included in the privilege list and given the same or similar rights access as the Ward Executive Secretary?

eblood66 wrote:Unfortunately that does limit the ability of the bishop and ward clerk to delegate certain responsibilities.

This is why I think the LDS.ORG access rights should be tailorable by Bishops just like MLS access rights are. The one-size fits all (with no possible exceptions) does not fit well. If it did, then MLS should have had a rigid set of access rights too.